Election and Free Will

After writing an essay on free will and attending various lectures on the divine will of God, I thought I would write up some thoughts. It is a difficult subject, of which i am no master of it, and one which causes many Christian's problems. Yet what I offer here is some gleanings of my learning.

The Calvinistic position affirms the doctrine of foreordination. God foreordains all that shall come to pass; this includes electing those whom he freely chooses to salvation. Let me show this by a few verses:

 ²⁹ For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.³⁰ And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 ESV)

 ⁷ It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, ⁸ but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deu 7:7-8 ESV)

AND FINALLY:

He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (Eph 1:5 ESV)

I believe these verses are sufficient proof to show the doctrine of election is a biblical argument. However, we also affirm the will of man is free. Yet how do we put these together? I wish to offer a few thoughts on this:

Some have argued: The Doctrine of Election is inconsistent with human responsibility.

We have two doctrines; freedom of the will in our nature and that God has foreordained all things. Some say this is incompatible; "how can I be free in my will, if what i choose to do has already been foreordained by God to happen?  As such, it is argued, the two doctrines are contradictory, and as such, we must give up on one or the other. We cannot have both as they contradict themselves.

However, we must see that these questions are philosophical questions not theological. In trying to reconcile these two views we are going to the question of logic and philosophy. The two doctrines stand by themselves and are theology taken straight from the Scriptures. Yet when we try to merge them together to form a unified thesis, we are asking how they relate in the mind and actions of the human. It is at this point we leave theology behind and go to philosophy. 

However, we must remember, because the two may appear incompatible, this does not diminish them as equally true! By themselves, the two doctrines stand on their own standards and truth. They are self-sufficient in this aspect. However, we must see that, the incompatibility of merging them together does not reflect the falsehood of them, but simply, our inability to reconcile them. 

Professor D. McLeod, notes the similarity of this same dilemma as seen in science. We are told by scientists, a wave and a particle are two different things.  They are two concepts, two matters, two different things which cannot be merged and are allowed to stand on their own as they are sufficient in themselves. Yet we are told that light is both a wave and a particle. The two are incompatible but are at the same time affirmed.

So we can see, if we want to place two things together, which stand by themselves, and cannot, we cannot say, "well one must be false." We do not put the night against the day and try merge them and say one must go because it cannot be night and day at one point. Accordingly, I am told my will is free, and I am told I am accountable for the actions I take in my life. Additionally, I know God foreordains all that shall come to pass. I cannot answer the compatibility of them together from any text because God does not answer this.

We must remember in this area we are in the high councils of God, of which, we have little sight. All we can gleam from Scripture is given in Romans:

 ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Rom 9:18-21 NIV)

Therefore, the doctrine of God's will as foreordaining all things and electing those whom he chooses to salvation must stand by themselves and we must not become caught up with a philosophical debate trying to relate the two. 

Additionally, let us beware of the hyper-Calvininst view: Because God elects those who will receive the Gospel I have no need to preach to all humanity.

This again is a serious objection but is a reconciliation issue. How can we ask everyone to repent and believe when God has foreordained some not to believe? From where we stand in the Free Church of Scotland, the obligation to preach to all is categorical. God has sent me to say to everyone, "I have good news for you." I do this, not because I can reconcile the two, but all I know is that God has told me to preach to all. God has said categorically, go and preach to all mankind. I have no right to say to God, "I will only speak to those who will be saved", or, "once you tell me how to reconcile this commission to election, then i will go." Let us abandon this position with great haste.

We know not how many are saved, it need not be a small number, as some think, but may be a huge percentage. We do not know, but what we do know let us affirm with confidence. God knows all and foreordains all. He elects those whom he chooses and by His foreordination our free will is established and upheld.